AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
GENEALOG
Garuda",,,,,,,,,
Markanda,,Bhagi,,,,,,,
Fakir (died in 1919),Basu,Jagu,,Udi,,,Nidhi,,
Chintamani
(died in 1927","Gunduchi
= Padi",Madhab,,"Sadhu =
Keluni",Dhadi,"Madhu
(adopted to
Chintamani)",Satyananda,Bankim,Seba
Madhu (died in
1982)",Baishnaba (Plaintiff),Murali,Mohini,,,,,,
been correctly decided, the other two decisions, referred to above, where question of adoption was to be gone into ancillarily, have been correctly decided.â€",,,,,,,,,
By order dated 30.04.1993, the Commissioner, Consolidation held that Malati is the adopted daughter of Madhu. The said order has attended",,,,,,,,,
finality. In the case of Srinibas Jena and others Vrs. Janardan Jena and others, AIR 1981 Orissa 1, a Full Bench of this Court in no uncertain terms",,,,,,,,,
held that the decision of the consolidation authorities on the questions of right, title and interest which are matters within their jurisdiction would operate",,,,,,,,,
as res judicata and that being so, the civil courts will have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit afresh.",,,,,,,,,
There is no prayer in the suit to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation. The question dose arise whether in absence of any",,,,,,,,,
prayer to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Consolidation, the suit is maintainable ?",,,,,,,,,
In the case of State of Kerala Vrs. M. K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and others, AIR 1996 SC 906, the apex Court",,,,,,,,,
held that -,,,,,,,,,
“Even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be",,,,,,,,,
effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word “void†is not determinative of its legal impact. The word,,,,,,,,,
“void†has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of,,,,,,,,,
invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise. The apex Court held:",,,,,,,,,
“7. xxx xxx xxx. An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the",,,,,,,,,
necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible",,,,,,,,,
purpose as the most impeccable of orders.,,,,,,,,,
This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision,,,,,,,,,
of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and,,,,,,,,,
latent defects.â€,,,,,,,,,
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (supra), the",,,,,,,,,
suit is not maintainable. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.,,,,,,,,,
In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.",,,,,,,,,
………………………..,,,,,,,,,